Editor's note: Deeksha Malik is a final-year student at
National Law Institute University, India. Her main interest areas are corporate
law, arbitration, and sports law. She can be reached at dkshmalik726@gmail.com.

In 2015, while interrogating
cricketer Sreesanth and others accused in the IPL match-fixing case, Justice
Neena Bansal, sitting as Additional Sessions Judge, made the following observations as regards betting on cricket matches.

“Cricket
as a game of skill requires hand-eye-coordination for throwing, catching and
hitting. It requires microscopic levels of precision and mental alertness for
batsmen to find gaps or for bowlers to produce variety of styles of deliveries’
(medium pace, fast, inswing, outswing, offspin, legspin, googly). The sport
requires strategic masterminds that can select the most efficient fielding
positions for piling pressure on the batsmen. Based on above description,
cricket cannot be described anything, but as a game of skill.”

The debate on the
issue of betting in sports has since resurfaced and gained the attention of
sportspersons, media, sports bodies, policymakers, and the general public. In
April 2017, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and AM
Khanwilkar agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an order
directing the government to come up with an appropriate framework for
regulating betting in sports. The arguments put forth in the PIL present
various dimensions. One of these pertains to economic considerations, a
submission that regulated betting would be able to generate annual revenue of Rs. 12,000 crores by bringing the earnings therefrom within the tax
net. As for policy considerations, it was submitted that a proper regulation in
this area would enable the government to distinguish harmless betting from
activities that impair the integrity of the game such as match-fixing. Further,
betting on cricket matches largely depends on the skill of the concerned
players, thereby distinguishing it from pure chance-based activities.

The issue of
sports betting witnesses a divided opinion till this day. This is understandable, for both sides to the issue have equally pressing
arguments. Aside from its regulation being a daunting task for authorities,
sports betting is susceptible to corruption and other unscrupulous activities.
At the same time, it is argued that it would be better for both the game and
the economy if the same is legalised. More...

Editor's note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and
materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage
provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You
are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free
to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have
overlooked.

The Headlines

The International Skating Union's eligibility rules
declared incompatible with EU competition law

On 8 December 2017,
the European Commission announced that it had rendered a decision in the case against
the International Skating Union (ISU). The Commission upheld the
complaint lodged in October 2015 by two Dutch professional speed skaters Mark Tuitert and Niels Kerstholt, represented in this case by Ben Van Rompuy and Antoine Duval (you can read their joint statement here), and ruled that the ISU's eligibility rules
preventing athletes from participating in speed skating competitions not
approved by the ISU under the threat of severe penalties are in violation of EU
competition law. In particular, the Commission held that these rules restrict
the commercial freedom of (i) athletes who may be deprived of additional source
of income as they are not allowed to participate in speed skating competitions
other than those authorised by the ISU; and (ii) independent organisers who are
unable to attract top athletes. And while the Commission recognised that
sporting rules with restrictive effects might be compatible with EU law if they
pursue a legitimate objective such as the protection of athletes' health and
safety or the protection of the integrity and proper conduct of sport, it found
that the ISU's eligibility rules pursue only its own commercial interests to
the detriment of athletes and independent organisers of speed skating
competitions. The ISU eventually escaped financial sanctions, but it must
modify or abolish its eligibility rules within 90 days; otherwise it would be
liable for non-compliance payments of up to 5% of its average daily turnover. For
more information on this topic, we invite you to read our recent blog written by Professor Stefano Bastianon.

The International Olympic Committee bans Russia from
the upcoming Winter Olympic Games

The world has been
waiting impatiently for the International Olympic Committee's (IOC)
decision on the participation of Russian athletes in the
upcoming 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang. This was finally communicated on 5 December 2017. Having deliberated on the findings of
the Schmid Commission, the
IOC Executive Board decided to suspend the Russian Olympic Committee with immediate
effect, meaning that only those Russian athletes who demonstrate that they had
not benefited from the state-sponsored doping programme will be able to
participate in the Games. Such clean athletes will be allowed to compete under
the Olympic Flag, bearing the name 'Olympic Athlete from Russia (OAR)' on their
uniforms. Further to this, the IOC Executive Board sanctioned several officials
implicated in the manipulation of the anti-doping system in Russia, including Mr
Vitaly Mutko, currently the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia and formerly the
Minister of Sport. Mounting public pressure subsequently forced Mr Mutko to step down as head of the Local Organising Committee for the
2018 FIFA World Cup.

Meanwhile, 21
individual Russian athletes were sanctioned (see here, here, here, and here) in December (in addition to 22 athletes in November)
by the IOC Oswald Commission that is tasked with investigating the alleged
doping violations by Russian athletes at the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in
Sochi. The Oswald Commission also published two full decisions in the cases
against Evgeny Belov and Aleksandr
Tretiakov who were both banned
from all future editions of the Games. It is now clear that the Court of
Arbitration for Sport will have quite some work in the coming weeks as the
banned athletes are turning to this Swiss-based arbitral tribunal to have their
sanctions reviewed (see here and here).

Universal Declaration of Player Rights

14 December 2017
was a great day for athletes all over the globe. On this day, representatives
of the world's leading player associations met in Washington D.C. to unveil the
Universal
Declaration of Player Rights, a landmark document developed under the aegis of the
World Players
Association that
strives to protect athletes from ongoing and systemic human rights violations
in global sport. The World Players Association's Executive Director Brendan
Schwab emphasised that
the current system of sports governance ''lacks
legitimacy and fails to protect the very people who sit at the heart of sport''
and stated that ''athlete rights can no
longer be ignored''. Among other rights, the Declaration recognises the
right of athletes to equality of opportunity, fair and just working conditions,
privacy and the protection of personal data, due process, or effective remedy.

Chris Froome failed a doping test during the last
year's Vuelta a España

The world of
cycling suffered yet another blow when it transpired that one of its superstars
Chris Froome had failed a
doping test during
the last year's Vuelta a España, a race he had eventually
emerged victorious from for the first time in his career. His urine sample
collected on 7 September 2017 contained twice the amount of salbutamol, a
medication used to treat asthma, than permissible under the World Anti-Doping
Agency's 2017 Prohibited List. Kenyan-born Froome has now hired a team of medical
and legal experts to put forward a convincing explanation for the abnormal
levels of salbutamol in his urine and thus to avoid sanctions being imposed on
him. More...

Editor’s note: Stefano Bastianon is Associate Professor in European
Law at the University of Bergamo and lawyer admitted to the Busto Arsizio bar.
He is also member of the IVth Division of the High Court of Sport
Justice (Collegio di Garanzia dello sport) at the National Olympic Committee.

1. From the very beginning, the outcome of the ISU case was highly predictable, at
least for those who are familiar with the basics of antitrust law.
Nevertheless, more than twenty years after the Bosman judgment, the sports sector has shown the same
shortsightedness and inability to see the forest for the trees. Even this
attitude was highly predictable, at least for those who know the basics of
sports governance. The final result is a clear-cut decision capable of
influencing the entire sports movement. More...

The first part of this two-part blog examined the new bidding
regulations adopted by the IOC and UEFA, and concluded that it is the latter
who gives more weight to human rights in its host selection process. This
second part completes the picture by looking at FIFA's bidding regulations
for the 2026 World Cup. It goes on to discuss whether human rights now constitute
a material factor in evaluating bids to host the mega-sporting events organised
by these three sports governing bodies. More...

Editor’s note:
Tomáš Grell holds an LL.M.
in Public International Law from Leiden University. He contributes to
the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a research
intern.

It has been more
than seven years since the FIFA Executive Committee awarded the 2022
World Cup to Qatar. And yet only in November 2017 did the Qatari government
finally agree to dismantle the controversial kafala system, described by
many as modern-day slavery. Meanwhile, hundreds of World Cup-related migrant
workers have reportedly been exposed to a wide range of abusive practices such
as false promises about the pay, passport confiscation, or appalling working
and living conditions.[1]
On top of that, some workers have paid the highest price – their life. To a
certain extent, all this could have been avoided if human rights had been taken
into account when evaluating the Qatari bid to host the tournament. In such a
case, Qatar would not have won the bidding contest without providing a
convincing explanation of how it intends to ensure that the country's poor human rights record
will not affect individuals, including migrant workers, contributing to the
delivery of the World Cup. An explicit commitment to abolish the kafala system could have formed an
integral part of the bid.

Urged by Professor
John Ruggie and his authoritative recommendations,[2]
in October 2017 FIFA decided to include human rights within the criteria for
evaluating bids to host the 2026 World Cup, following similar steps taken
earlier this year by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
and UEFA in the context
of the Olympic Winter Games 2026 and the Euro 2024 respectively. This two-part
blog critically examines the role human rights play in the new bidding
regulations adopted by the IOC, UEFA, and FIFA. The first part sheds light on
the IOC and UEFA. The second part then takes a closer look at FIFA and aims to
use a comparative analysis to determine whether the new bidding regulations are
robust enough to ensure that selected candidates abide by international human
rights standards.More...

Editor's note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have overlooked.

The Headlines

FIFA and FIFPro sign landmark agreement

A six-year cooperation agreement concluded between FIFA and FIFPro on 6 November 2017 puts an end to protracted negotiations which began after the latter had filed in September 2015 a complaint with the European Commission, challenging the validity of the FIFA transfer system under EU competition law. This agreement, together with an accord reached between FIFA, FIFPro, the European Club Association, and the World Leagues Forum under the umbrella of the FIFA Football Stakeholders Committee, should help streamline dispute resolution between players and clubs, avoid abusive practices in the world of football, or contribute to the growth of professional women's football. In addition, the FIFA Football Stakeholders Committee is now expected to establish a task force to study and conduct a broader review of the transfer system. As part of the deal, FIFPro agreed to withdraw its EU competition law complaint.

It is fair to say that human rights have been at the forefront of FIFA's agenda in 2017. Following the establishment of the Human Rights Advisory Board in March and the adoption of the Human Rights Policy in June this year, in November FIFA published the bidding regulations for the 2026 World Cup. Under these new regulations, member associations bidding to host the final tournament shall, inter alia, commit themselves to respecting all internationally recognised human rights in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights or present a human rights strategy on how they intend to honour this commitment. Importantly, the human rights strategy must include a comprehensive report that is to be complemented and informed by a study elaborated by an independent expert organisation. Moreover, on 9 November 2017, the Human Rights Advisory Board published its first report in which it outlined several recommendations for FIFA on how to further strengthen its efforts to ensure respect for human rights.

While all these attempts to enhance human rights protection are no doubt praiseworthy, they have not yet produced the desired effect as reports of gross human rights abuses linked to FIFA's activities continue to emerge. Most recently, Human Rights Watch documented how Russian police arrested a newspaper editor and a human rights defender whose work focused on exposing World Cup-related corruption and exploitation of migrant construction workers. On a more positive note, a bit of hope comes with the announcement by a diverse coalition, including FIFA, UEFA, and the International Olympic Committee, of its intention to launch a new independent Centre for Sport and Human Rights in 2018.

More than 20 Russian athletes sanctioned by the Oswald Commission for anti-doping rule violations at the Sochi Games

November has been a busy month for the International Olympic Committee, especially for its Oswald Commission. Established in July 2016 after the first part of the McLaren Independent Investigation Report had been published, the Oswald Commission is tasked with investigating the alleged doping violations by Russian athletes at the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi. Its first sanctions were handed down last month. As of 30 November 2017, the Commission chaired by the IOC Member Denis Oswald sanctioned 22 athletes (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) who competed at the Sochi Olympics in the following sports: biathlon, bobsleigh, cross country skiing, skeleton, and speed skating. The Commission published its first full decision on 27 November 2017 in the case against the cross country skier Alexander Legkov, a gold and silver medallist from the Sochi Olympics, who was ultimately banned for life from attending another Olympics.More...

Editor's note: We (Ben Van Rompuy and Antoine Duval) are at the origin of today's decision by the European Commission finding that the International Skating Union's eligibility rules are contrary to EU competition law. In 2014, we were both struck by the news that ISU threatened lifetime ban against speed skaters wishing to participate in the then projected Icederby competitions and convinced that it was running against the most fundamental principles of EU competition law. We got in touch with Mark and Niels and lodged on their behalf a complaint with the European Commission. Three years after we are pleased to see that the European Commission, and Commissioner Vestager in particular, fully embraced our arguments and we believe this decision will shift the tectonic structure of sports governance in favour of athletes for years to come.

Here is our official statement:

Today is a great day for Mark Tuitert and Niels Kerstholt, but more importantly for all European athletes. The European Commission did not only consider the International Skating Union's eligibility rules contrary to European law, it sent out a strong message to all international sports federations that the interests of those who are at the centre of sports, the athletes, should not be disregarded. This case was always about giving those that dedicate their lives to excelling in a sport a chance to compete and to earn a decent living. The majority of athletes are no superstars and struggle to make ends meet and it is for them that this decision can be a game-changer.

However, we want to stress that this case was never about threatening the International Skating Union’s role in regulating its sport. And we very much welcome the exceptional decision taken by the European Commission to refrain from imposing a fine which could have threatened the financial stability of the International Skating Union. The International Skating Union, and other sports federations, are reminded however that they cannot abuse their legitimate regulatory power to protect their economic interests to the detriment of the athletes.

We urge the International Skating Union to enter into negotiations with representatives of the skaters to devise eligibility rules which are respectful of the interests of both the athletes and their sport.

Since the summer of 2014, it has been our honour to stand alongside Mark and Niels in a 'David versus Goliath' like challenge to what we always perceived as an extreme injustice. In this fight, we were also decisively supported by the team of EU Athletes and its Chance to Compete campaign.

Finally, we wish to extend a special thank you to Commissioner Vestager. This case is a small one for the European Commission, but Commissioner Vestager understood from the beginning that small cases do matter to European citizens and that European competition law is there to provide a level playing for all, and we are extremely grateful for her vision.

Editor's Note: Ryan Gauthier is Assistant Professor at Thompson Rivers University in Canada. Ryan’s research addresses the governance of sports organisations, with a particular focus on international sports organisations. His PhD research examined the accountability of the International Olympic Committee for human rights violations caused by the organisation of the Olympic Games.

Publicly Financing a Stadium – Back in the Saddle(dome)

Calgary, Canada, held their municipal elections on October 16, 2017, re-electing Naheed Nenshi for a third term as mayor. What makes this local election an interesting issue for sports, and sports law, is the domination of the early days of the campaign by one issue – public funding for a new arena for the Calgary Flames. The Flames are Calgary’s National Hockey League (NHL) team, and they play in the Scotiabank Saddledome. More...

Editor’s Note: Oytun
Azkanar holds an LLB degree from Anadolu University in Turkey and an LLM degree
from the University of Melbourne. He is currently
studying Sports Management at the Anadolu University.

Introduction

On 19
October 2017, the Turkish Professional Football Disciplinary Committee (Disciplinary
Committee) rendered an extraordinary decision regarding the fixing of the
game between Manisaspor and Şanlıurfaspor played on 14 May 2017. The case
concerned an alleged match-fixing agreement between Elyasa Süme (former
Gaziantepspor player), İsmail Haktan Odabaşı and Gökhan Sazdağı (Manisaspor
players). The Disciplinary Committee
acknowledged that the evidence
relevant for proving the match-fixing allegations was obtained illegally and therefore
inadmissible, and the remaining evidence was not sufficient to establish that the game
was fixed. Before discussing the allegations, it is important to note that the
decision is not only significant for Turkish football but is also crucial to the
distinction between disciplinary and criminal proceedings in sports. More...

Close to 100 participants from 37 different countries attended the first ISLJ Annual International Sports Law Conference that took place on 26-27 October 2017 in The Hague. The two-day programme featured panels on the FIFA transfer system, the labour rights and relations in sport, the protection of human rights in sport, EU law and sport, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the world anti-doping system. On top of that, a number of keynote speakers presented their views on contemporary topics and challenges in international sports law. This report provides a brief summary of the conference for both those who could not come and those who participated and would like to relive their time spent at the T.M.C. Asser Institute.More...

Upcoming Events

The ASSER International Sports Law Blog

This blog is a knowledge hub for all things related with International Sports Law. On this page, you will find the recent developments in the field: publications, events and cases. Moreover, we will provide outstanding (short) academic commentaries on the most pressing questions in International Sports Law.